Tuesday, January 29, 2013

You might say I was against the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration
before it was cool. Having somewhat of an interest in the unity of Canada, I’ve
long been aware of the emptiness of NDP policy when it comes to handling the
unthinkable but not implausible – a referendum on a province leaving confederation
– and their duplicitous habit of saying one thing in Quebec, and one thing in
the rest of Canada.

For some time, they played this two-faced game. In Quebec,
they declared Sherbrooke was their policy. In the “rest of Canada” they claimed
fidelity to the Clarity Act. And, when challenged, they claimed there was no
contradiction between the two – a position easily exposed as utter nonsense.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair
has waded into the national unity swamp, with proposed legislation specifying
that a bare majority Yes vote would be sufficient to trigger negotiations on
Quebec’s secession from Canada.

New Democrat MP Craig
Scott tabled Monday what his party is dubbing the “unity bill.”

The bill would repeal
the Clarity Act — introduced by former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien
after Quebecers came within a hair of voting to secede in 1995 — and replace it
with legislation which Mulcair maintained would provide more certainty and be
more respectful of Quebecers.

I will credit the NDP for one thing – they have ended their
two-faced wishy-washiness on the Clarity Act vs. the Sherbrooke Declaration:
they are against the Clarity Act, full stop. It’s probably the most significant
policy shift the NDP has made since Tom Mulcair took over for the late Jack
Layton.

Unfortunately, it’s a completely irresponsible and just
plain wrong position un-befitting of a party propposing itself as ready to
govern all of Canada. You need a 2/3s vote to amend the NDP constitution, but
they will let the separatists break up Canada with 50 per cent plus one. That’s irresponsible in the extreme.

And who is opening a dead issue now? The Clarity Act has
been the law of the land for nearly 13 years. The federalist vote in Quebec
increased after its passage. Is there anyone clamoring for its repeal, other
than the Bloc Quebecois, and perhaps the former sovereigntists in Mulcair’s
Quebec caucus?

I don’t think so. Nevertheless, Mulcair and the NDP seem to
want to make this a national issue, given that the bill was tabled by a Toronto
MP, Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth). So, speaking as one Liberal and just for
himself (though I’m sure I’m not alone) I’m happy to take him up on his
generous offer.

Now that Mr. Mulcair has given us his blessing, I’m looking forward
to the 2015 election, where we can talk across Canada about the NDP’s belief
that Canada can dissolve our confederation with one scant vote. I think that will be a most interesting debate that voters in
Toronto-Danforth, and across *all* of Canada, will be very interested in.

9 comments:

Hear hear, Jeff. Its our duty as Liberals to ensure that this PMB doesn't move out of the spotlight by 2015; I want to ensure every voter out there knows that the NDP not only brought up Constitutional squabbling again, but they're trying to break a system that took so long to fix.

50% + 1 is better known as DEMOCRACY ... (a concept that is beyond Cdn Liberals & Conservatives who for a century and a half have accepted that 37% can form a Majority government in the nation AND have consistently perpetuated an unelected/appointed Upper House of Parliament).

Liberals, it would seem, seem prepared to use military force to prevent Quebec from leaving, should that scenario EVER materialize.

Great, does that mean Mulcair will let B.C. out of Ottawa's pen on a 50+1 vote? That will certainly make life easier in the aftermath of the Northern Gateway battles. Seems to me he'd have to let somebody out, B.C. or Alberta.

50% + 1 is better known as DEMOCRACY ... (a concept that is beyond Cdn Liberals & Conservatives who for a century and a half have accepted that 37% can form a Majority government in the nation AND have consistently perpetuated an unelected/appointed Upper House of Parliament).

Hey, the NDP rule with majority governments in Manitoba and Nova Scotia even though they both got less than 50% of the vote (46.16% and 45.24% respectively). Speaking of 37%, back when the NDP won in 1990 in Ontario, they got 37.6% of the vote and 56% of the seats... and I didn't see anyone stepping down because this was "undemocratic."

Also want to point out that if you're going to talk about democracy, what's your take on the NDP's proposal to give Quebec a fixed proportion of seats in the House of Commons -- democratic, or undemocratic. (Democracy: all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives)

Great, does that mean Mulcair will let B.C. out of Ottawa's pen on a 50+1 vote? That will certainly make life easier in the aftermath of the Northern Gateway battles. Seems to me he'd have to let somebody out, B.C. or Alberta.

@leftdog: In democracies, changes to the constitution require a damn sight more than just 50%+1 of the vote in a single subdivision of the country. It generally has to be a vote of the entire population, and the threshold is almost universally set at two thirds (67%) or even three quarters (75%). Separation would be a constitutional change.

As for military force, I don't know that anyone would be keen to use military force to keep unwilling Quebec citizens in Canada. However, the government would have an absolute obligation to protect loyal Canadians in Quebec who DIDN'T choose to accept Quebec's completely illegal unilateral declaration of independence in the face of separatist use of violence to force them to conform. THAT is where any violence would definitely start.

I'm also looking forward to your answer to sharonapple's question about the NDP's ridiculous promise to guarantee 25% of Commons seats to Quebec in perpetuity. How does that square with your version of democracy?

As you may recall, I've been saying for a long time now that the Liberal Party should press the NDP on the national unity issue. I'm disappointed that it's taken the Bloc to bring this to the forefront instead.

Next, Mulcair must be forced to give a clear answer on whether he supports the rights of the Cree and other aboriginal nations in Quebec to have their territories remain a part of Canada after a Yes vote.

As you may recall, I've been saying for a long time now that the Liberal Party should press the NDP on the national unity issue. I'm disappointed that it took the Bloc to bring it to the forefront instead.

Next, Mulcair must be forced to say clearly whether he supports the right of the Cree and other aboriginal nations in Quebec to keep their territories as part of Canada after a Yes vote.

Next, Mulcair must be forced to say clearly whether he supports the right of the Cree and other aboriginal nations in Quebec to keep their territories as part of Canada after a Yes vote.

The Cree don't seem to be a fan of just going along for the ride when it comes to Quebec Separation -- or that's the impression I get from the articles from The Grand Council of the Cree. (Some of the articles are quite blunt: Quebec Agrees to Negotiate, Kidnap Crees First But "Negotiate"; 50 Percent Plus One Vote Insufficient.)

The link to the one on Bill 99 is down, but if you're curious here's an article on it.